Friday, June 10, 2016

Giving Back Mag

So, earlier today on tiwtter I tweeted three or four pictures of giving back magazine.

Giving Back Magazine (which I'm going to call GBmag from now on) sort of personally offends me. I didn't know it existed until Thursday, and now I'm angry about it. Sort of. As much as I care about anything right now. I'm a little tired and so this isn't going to have my standard level of bitchy snark.
I"m not angry. I'm just kind of bothered. A little offended. And I want everyone to be a little offended about it too.

So. First of all, let's go over the distribution of GBmag, INFOMERCIAL STYLE

HAS THIS EVER HAPPENED TO YOU?TIRED OF WAKING UP TO FIND ISSUES OF PLAYBOY DELIVERED TO YOUR HOUSE WHILE YOU SLEEP? COSMO? READER'S DIGEST? FINE WOODWORKING? AMERICAN GIRL? GUIDEPOSTS? CHICKEN FARMER?

OF COURSE YOU HAVEN'T.

This is because no legitimate magazine actually distribute their magazines by putting them in baggies and throwing one at every house in the neighborhood. That is just not cost effective.
For you who aren't familiar with legitimate magazines, you pay money for them, and they only deliver magazines to people who pay them money. People who pay for magazines usually want to read them (or bought one from a high school kid trying to fund a band trip). If you only want one issue of a magazine, you can pay the cover price.

Real magazines make sure that the only people who get the magazine are paying money for it and actually want it delivered. This is because real magazines need money in order to make their magazine happen.

You can tell that people don't pay for GBmag for two reasons: First of all, because I got one and I sure as fucking shit didn't pay for it. Second of all, because if people paid for the magazine there wouldn't be five of them sitting outside, over 24 hours after they were delivered.

So, a really, really important thing to keep in mind here is that the people who got copies of Giving Back Magazine (and it calls itself a magazine) did not get it because they wanted it.

Someone out there decided that everyone in my neighborhood should have a copy. The people of Giving Back Magazine do not care who gets a copy. There is no filter process.

So you might be saying, Polly, calm the fuck down, do you get this annoyed about spam email? Was the bold italics REALLY necessary?Yes.

This is because it makes the content that much more offensive. Someone decided that the content of the 'magazine' was worthy of being shared with literally everyone.

Let's go through it.
(I will use the word "charity" to describe any cause. I'm not going to look up if they're technically charities. You're lucky any of this has pictures)

Front cover: Excellent example of steampunk. Black studded leather jackets and thigh slit skirts, very steampunk. Tiny top hats on headbands, so much the steampunk. The other two look like they at least have heard of steampunk, even if they don't know that you don't wear brown hats with black dresses. I digress. That's a bit nitpicky. No mention of why they're in steampunk

Okay, 8 pages of adverts. Guess that's how they get the funding to just lob copies everywhichway to people who DGAF.

Page 10: We still have no information about who or what GBmag is published by or what exactly they're giving back, and what they took that they have to give back.
Page 10 is the first real page of content. It is advertising local events: Poolside Jazz, the Mexican National Soccer Team playing a game here, and "a day for schools and business to hilight their interests in science, technology...through interactive experiments."
Awesome. Note that none of these events are for charity, or if they are it doesn't sai it.
Page 11: The concert gala is coming up. The name of the gala chairs, Cheap Trick will be playing, you can win a ring with 90 diamonds. Down at the bottom it mentions a charity and a private concert for people who buy a ticket.Charity count, 1 charity, 2 (non ad) pages, 50%
Page 12+13: Summer vibes, a guide to fashion of the summer.
Page 14: Quick summary of a charity with a lot of pictures.Charity Count: 2/4, 50%
Page 16+17: A story about two girls who like fitness, no mention of any kind of charity that they have.
Page 18: Community event where you can meet the mayor or interrogate the police.
Page 20: Summary of a charity event. 1 paragraph and a lot of pictures.Charity count: 3/8, 38%
Page 21: One line mentions a charity
Charity count: 4/9, 44% Page 22: Story about a lady who helped the communityCharity Count: 5/10, 50%
Page 23: Event at the zoo thanking sponsorsCharity Count: 6/11, 55%
Page 24+26+28+30: Paragraph about event and a lot of pictures
Charity Count: 10/16, 60%
Page 32+33: Story about the Red Cross
Charity count: 12/18, 66%
Page 34, Paragraph and pictures
Charity Count: 13/19
Page 35: Ronald Mcdonald house likes its sponsors
Charity Count: 14/20
Page 36: Pictures and paragraph
Charity Count 15/20

Okay, you know what? Those "pictures and paragraph" pages are literally just pictures of people who donated. That's just WE DID GOOD.

Updated Charity Count because I changed the rules:
Charities you can help: 4/21, 19%
Self Wank LOOK AT US WE DONATED: 9/21, 43%

Now, remember that this magazine was sent to everyone. Look at us. We donated.

40-43: MasturbationWank: 12/24, 50%
44+45: Event, music in the park, does not support a charity
46+47+49+50: Wank16/28, 50%, 57%
50+51, story, not about community
52-57, wank23/35, 66%
58+59, story about community eventCharity count, 6/37, 17%
60-65, wank25/39, 64%
66+67, story about the ballet's new season
68+69, you guessed it, wank27/41, 68%

Okay, I'm going to tally the rest and share the final result because chronicling it is getting dull.Final countdown:
27% stories not about helping the community
16% ways you can help the community (if you have a lot of money)
57% thanking sponsors for events.*****If you stopped reading, start reading again here!*****

Now, listen up. There's nothing wrong with thanking people who helped the community. There's nothing inherently wrong with the act of being over half thanking sponsors.But here's where they stopped being okay. It's about the distribution. If there was a magazine ('magazine') given out at events thanking sponsors, or mailed out to everyone who was a sponsor, or even mailed out to everyone who attended an event featured in the magazine, they'd be fine.
Instead, this was worse than mass mailing. This was given out to anyone who may or may not want it.

Then it goes from a thank you to, "Look at us! We're so good!"

A magazine called giving back, that's given to everyone, inherently is given mostly to people who literally could not give a single flying fuck about people they don't know donating to charities they don't care about. This magazine has more articles about people who in no way seem to help or represent the community, than it has articles or adverts about events or ways to help the community.
A magazine called Giving Back that is given to everyone regardless of wanting it should be about inspiring people to give back, and helping people who want to give back give back.

Instead it's about looking at a bunch of rich people who you don't give a shit about doing shit you don't give a shit about.

What a fucking waste of money. I feel sorry for the trees that had to die to make this. They deserve better.